Mapping Technology-Enhanced Language Assessment in TVET and Occupational Education: Bibliographic Structure and Emerging Directions

Technology-enhanced language assessment increasingly combines online testing, automated scoring, artificial-intelligence-supported feedback and multimodal performance capture. In vocational and occupational education, however, this literature is dispersed across language testing, English for specific purposes, workplace communication and professional education. This study maps the bibliographic structure of that intersection and examines what the underlying studies show about occupational authenticity, human-AI judgement, validity evidence and assessment governance. A Scopus search conducted on 5 August 2026 retrieved 253 records. After document-type, language, publication-year and title-abstract screening, 31 journal articles meeting all three substantive eligibility dimensions formed the final bibliometric corpus. Performance analysis, a reproducible Python/NetworkX document-level bibliographic-coupling analysis, author-keyword analysis and structured full-text synthesis were combined. Twenty-two articles (71.0%) were published from 2021 to 2026. At a threshold of at least one shared cited work, the coupling network contained 44 unique document-pair links with a summed edge weight of 65; the largest component included 19 documents and 12 documents were isolated. The same largest-component size and isolate count were retained across exact, prefix and fuzzy canonicalisation variants, although link counts and summed edge weights varied. Author-keyword recurrence was sparse, with only six terms occurring in at least two documents. Full texts were available for 26 articles and supported four cross-cutting findings: human-AI assessment is more defensible as complementarity than substitution; occupational authenticity depends on task-construct alignment; validity evidence remains uneven across assessment uses; and governance and score-use evidence are less developed than delivery, scoring and feedback. The field is therefore recent but structurally fragmented. Future research should prioritise occupationally authentic validation, transparent human-AI decision rules, fairness, consequential score use and traceable assessment governance.

bibliometric analysis, occupational communication, technology-enhanced language assessment

1. Chen, A., Zhang, Y., Jia, J., Liang, M., Cha, Y., & Lim, C. P. (2025). A systematic review and meta-analysis of AI-enabled assessment in language learning: Design, implementation, and effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chuang, P.-L., & Yan, X. (2025). Language assessment in the era of generative artificial intelligence: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions. System, 134, 103846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103846 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Corrigan, J. A., & Slomp, D. H. (2021). Articulating a sociocognitive construct of writing expertise for the digital age. Journal of Writing Analytics, 5, 142–195. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2021.5.1.05 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Dai, X., Wang, Y., Yu, J., Qiu, B., Wang, R., & Na, M. (2026). Motivation and engagement as pathways: How AI-augmented online assessment shapes English-speaking competency in vocational EFL classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1730953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1730953 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. De Felice, R., & Deane, P. (2012). Identifying speech acts in e-mails: Toward automated scoring of the TOEIC® e-mail task. ETS Research Report Series, 2012(2), i–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2012.tb02298.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Doykova, I. (2025). Comparing AI- and instructor-designed ESP tasks for medical English students. Analele Universității „Ovidius” Constanța. Seria Filologie, 36(2), 1128–1141. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dursun, A., Morris, J. K., & Ünaldı, A. (2020). Designing proficiency-oriented performance tasks for the 21st-century workplace written communication: An evidence-centered design approach. Assessing Writing, 46, Article 100487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fortanet-Gómez, I., & Edo-Marzá, N. (2022). New genres and new approaches: Teaching and assessing product pitches from a multimodal perspective in the ESP classroom [Nuevos géneros y nuevos enfoques: La enseñanza y el aprendizaje del product pitch desde una perspectiva multimodal en la clase de inglés especializado]. Porta Linguarum, 38, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi38.21621 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gao, F. (2026). MFF-PEA: An automatic assessment model for professional spoken English via multimodal feature fusion. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 27(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJICT.2026.151530 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Giray, L., & Ramos, C. C. (2025). Human subjectivity as defense against AI plagiarism in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) writing. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 13(3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP250425030G [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gusenbauer, M. (2022). Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 127, 2683–2745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hamaniuk, V. A., Bilozir, O. S., & Semerikov, S. O. (2026). Mapping the research landscape of multilingual repertoires and linguistic justice in education: A systematic bibliometric analysis. Educational Dimension, 15, 239–270. https://doi.org/10.31812/ed.836 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hamilton, J., Reddel, S., & Spratt, M. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of on-line rater training and monitoring. System, 29(4), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00036-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. He, T., Yao, J., Lai, Y., & Zou, Y. (2026). Optimization design of intelligent pronunciation assessment system based on speech recognition technology in higher vocational English classroom teaching under the background of industry-teaching integration. International Journal of Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management Applications, 18, 12. https://doi.org/10.70917/ijcisim-2026-0029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jaturapitakkul, N., Horness, P., & Pansa, D. (2025). A Rasch-based validation of the reading section of Test of English for Thai Engineers and Technologists (TETET). rEFLections, 32(3), 1660–1681. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v32i3.285703 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kohnke, L., Jarvis, A., & Ting, A. (2021). Digital multimodal composing as authentic assessment in discipline-specific English courses: Insights from ESP learners. TESOL Journal, 12(3), Article e600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.600 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kumpulainen, M., & Seppänen, M. (2022). Combining Web of Science and Scopus datasets in citation-based literature study. Scientometrics, 127, 5613–5631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04475-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lan, G., Li, Y., Yang, J., & He, X. (2025). Investigating a customized generative AI chatbot for automated essay scoring in a disciplinary writing task. Assessing Writing, 66, Article 100959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2025.100959 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Liu, A., Abdullah, A., & Meng, F. (2025). Mapping informal digital learning of English (IDLE): A bibliometric analysis of citation, co-occurrence, and co-citation (2000–2024). Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 40(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2025.40.3.14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lockwood, J. (2022). The design of a webchat assessment framework for contact centres in Asia. Sociolinguistic Studies, 16(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.42361 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lockwood, J. E. (2015). Language for Specific Purpose (LSP) performance assessment in Asian call centres: Strong and weak definitions. Language Testing in Asia, 5, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-014-0009-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. McNamara, T. (2014). 30 years on—Evolution or revolution? Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.895830 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mirabile, M., Corazza, G. E., & Alonso-Moral, J. M. (2026). Trust in human–AI collaboration in finance: A bibliometric–systematic literature review. AI & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03049-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Mohsen, M. A., Althebi, S., Alsagour, R., Alsalem, A., Almudawi, A., & Alshahrani, A. (2024). Forty-two years of computer-assisted language learning research: A scientometric study of hotspot research and trending issues. ReCALL, 36(2), 230–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000253 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Motteram, J., Spiby, R., Bellhouse, G., & Sroka, K. (2023). Implementation of an accommodations policy for candidates with diverse needs in a large-scale testing system. Language Testing, 40(4), 904–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231166587 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Nazim, M., & Alzubi, A. A. F. (2022). Evaluation of an online teacher-made test through Blackboard in an English as a foreign language writing context. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 14(4), 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i4.7614 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Pan, V. W.-C. (2026). AI-driven automated writing evaluation feedback and its role in developing EFL writing assessment literacy: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Asia TEFL, 23(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2026.23.1.6.81 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Pan, Y. (2025). Leveraging generative AI powered rubric-indexed feedback as a formative assessment strategy for enhancing medical English education. Discover Computing, 28(1), Article 284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-025-09830-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Phaiboonnugulkij, M., & Prapphal, K. (2013). Online speaking strategy assessment for improving speaking ability in the area of language for specific purposes: The case of tourism. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n9p19 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Rajamanickam, S., Che’ Rus, R., Abdul Raji, M. N., Mina, H., & Vebrianto, R. (2025). Global trends in vocational training education: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(12), 4548–4564. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8120382 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rogers, G., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. (2020). Sample size in bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 125, 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Salem, A. A. M. S. (2026). Generative AI-driven feedback in flipped writing workshops: Transforming business education through improved writing, communication, and self-regulation. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331261431156 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Shih, R. C. (2013). Effect of using Facebook to assist English for business communication course instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 52–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. van den Branden, K., Depauw, V., & Gysen, S. (2002). A computerized task-based test of second language Dutch for vocational training purposes. Language Testing, 19(4), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt239oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Vernice, M., Matta, M., Tironi, M., Caccia, M., Lombardi, E., Guasti, M. T., Sarti, D., & Lang, M. (2019). An online tool to assess sentence comprehension in teenagers at risk for school exclusion: Evidence from L2 Italian students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2417. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02417 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Waiprakhon, T., & Jaturapitakkul, N. (2018). Test-taking strategies used in the reading section of the Test of English for Thai Engineers and Technologists: A computer-based ESP test. PASAA, 55, 147–177. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.PASAA.55.1.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Wolf, R. R., & Wolf, A. B. (2023). Using AI to evaluate a competency-based online writing course in nursing. Online Learning Journal, 27(3), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i3.3974 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Yang, Z., & Wang, P. (2025). Current status and research trend of English language assessment: A bibliometric analysis. Language Testing in Asia, 15, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00317-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Yusoff, Y., Tahar, E., Aziz, I. A., & Jusoh, R. (2026). Mapping the intellectual structure of youth financial literacy research: A bibliographic coupling analysis (2005–2025). International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 10(14), 1987–1999. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.1014MG0148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zaki, N. A. M., Ghani, D. Z. A., Zakaria, M. I., & Suhaimee, N. R. A. (2026). Bibliometric analysis of teacher competency and pedagogical models for digital technology integration in school physical education. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 10(2), 5828–5850. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.10200429 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Zapata-Rivera, D., Andrews-Todd, J., & Oliveri, M. E. (2021). Communicating assessment information in the context of a workplace formative task. Journal of Writing Analytics, 5, 324–341. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2021.5.1.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Zhu, Y., & Dong, M. (2025). Decoding the raters’ mind: A metadiscourse investigation of ChatGPT vs EFL instructors in Business English writing assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 87, Article 101541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101541 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study